↓ Skip to main content

Patient factors associated with non-attendance at colonoscopy after a positive screening faecal occult blood test

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Screening, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 353)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Patient factors associated with non-attendance at colonoscopy after a positive screening faecal occult blood test
Published in
Journal of Medical Screening, July 2016
DOI 10.1177/0969141316645629
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew A Plumb, Alex Ghanouni, Sandra Rainbow, Natasha Djedovic, Sarah Marshall, Judith Stein, Stuart A Taylor, Steve Halligan, Georgios Lyratzopoulos, Christian von Wagner

Abstract

Screening participants with abnormal faecal occult blood test results who do not attend further testing are at high risk of colorectal cancer, yet little is known about their reasons for non-attendance. We conducted a medical record review of 170 patients from two English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme centres who had abnormal guaiac faecal occult blood test screening tests between November 2011 and April 2013 but did not undergo colonoscopy. Using information from patient records, we coded and categorized reasons for non-attendance. Of the 170 patients, 82 were eligible for review, of whom 66 had at least one recorded reason for lack of colonoscopy follow-up. Reasons fell into seven main categories: (i) other commitments, (ii) unwillingness to have the test, (iii) a feeling that the faecal occult blood test result was a false positive, (iv) another health issue taking priority, (v) failing to complete bowel preparation, (vi) practical barriers (e.g. lack of transport), and (vii) having had or planning colonoscopy elsewhere. The most common single reasons were unwillingness to have a colonoscopy and being away. We identify a range of apparent reasons for colonoscopy non-attendance after a positive faecal occult blood test screening. Education regarding the interpretation of guaiac faecal occult blood test findings, offer of alternative confirmatory test options, and flexibility in the timing or location of subsequent testing might decrease non-attendance of diagnostic testing following positive faecal occult blood test.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 16%
Other 5 13%
Student > Master 3 8%
Librarian 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 42%
Psychology 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 10 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 November 2019.
All research outputs
#710,311
of 15,115,606 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Screening
#16
of 353 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,798
of 267,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Screening
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,115,606 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 353 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,995 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.